Bugonia: Queen Bees and Wannabees at the Oscars
Bugonia, Yorgos Lanthimos, Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Politics
and the Movies, Psychoanalysis, Psychology, Oscar Nominated Films for best
picture 2025
This week, at our local movie house, we are watching 10
films that have been nominated for best picture. Actually, I missed one that was only being
shown during the day, and we’ll see if we make it to the other nine. Movies pack a lot into two hours (plus or minus). The binge watching we have become more
accustomed to pushes us along a known track, creating a craving at the end of
each episode. A movie introduces us to a
whole world, the way a novel does, walks us through it, and then wraps it up
with a bow and delivers us back to our own world. It is a more intense ride.
Bugonia was a particularly intense ride. With no background or expectation – other than
having seen Emma Stone
in Yorgos Lanthimos’
Poor
Things a couple of years ago – we were introduced to her not as the suicide
survivor who was struggling to come of age in an era when women were thwarted,
as she was in that film, but as Michelle Fuller the powerful CEO of a company
who has little empathy with the poor things who work for her and bring her and
the corporation fantastic wealth as a result of their unending labor.
Simultaneously, we are introduced to Jesse Plemons’
character, Ted Gatz, a struggling, loner who keeps bees with his mentally
challenged cousin Don (Aidan
Delbis) and is concerned about the welfare of those bees as they face
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD as he calls it in his dialogues with Michelle
Fuller). The corporation he works for as
a shipping clerk, loading boxes, we learn is also the corporation that Michelle Fuller heads, and it
is a pharmaceutical company that also manufactures the pesticides that he blames
for CCD.
At this point, after having set up the dynamic, I want to
try to step out of describing the plot.
I want to avoid describing the plot for two reasons: partly because it
is wacky – a little like Donny Darko,
Everything, Everywhere All At Once, or a host of other seemingly low budget,
science fictionesque films that use science fictiony ideas as a device to expose something uncanny
about our experience of life. I was not
surprised to learn that this is a remake of a 2020 Korean film.
The second reason that I want to avoid describing the plot
is because this is a well-crafted movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat. I was uncertain about just what was really
happening as it pivoted from moment to moment and I was constantly reassessing
my own reading of the basic plot – so if you haven’t seen it, I don’t want to
steal that from you. That said, I should
warn you that there is a great deal of violence, and, though it is not
gratuitous in that it is, I think, necessary to the plot, the violence is
graphic and while even, at moments, over the top and blackly comical; it is
considerable in both its quantity and graphic depiction.
So I will, in effect, try to interpret the latent content of
this movie/dream without referring too much to its manifest, observed content. In doing this, I have a sense that I may be
anticipating the “collection” of Oscar nominees for best picture. This film (and we also saw the Brazilian
nominee last night, The Secret Agent) seems to be struggling with the craziness
that the world is currently experiencing, even though it has been being planned
for over the course of the past five years.
It feels as if Hollywood knew that we would be perched on this precipice.
One theme that is right below the surface in this film is that
of toxic masculinity. Not the type of toxic
masculinity that is being modelled by people like Trump, but the toxic
masculinity of some of those who voted for him.
There is the sense that competitive women – the women who are no longer
taking their place in the kitchen where they belong – are destroying our
world. They are Queen Bees that the men
now work for – but in Colony Collapse Disorder, they are the Queen Bees that the
workers abandon in droves. Ted Gatz
personifies the disaffected worker who is tired of working for the Wo-man, seemingly
forgetting that this trope was defined by masculine mores about what it takes
to get ahead, and he has not seen, as we have, that Michelle Fuller is working
at full tilt to get ahead and stay there, both mentally and physically, just as,
or perhaps, more aggressively than a man would have done.
He also doesn’t quite see the stark emptiness in her life,
living in a modern, stripped down, sterile home, surrounded, not by a family,
but by well-manicured but lifeless lawns both at home and at work. Her worker bees are not supportive and warm,
but efficient, awed, and a bit scared by her and her power. She deigns to know them by name, and to grant
that, as a new policy, they can choose to leave work at 5:30 if they really
have nothing additional to work on – and this will not be held against them,
perhaps.
I have to stop at this point and note that the reluctant son
is in his first year as an associate at a high-powered law firm. He likes the law, he has worked hard in
undergraduate and in law school and enjoys the work, including at the law firm,
but even he is brought up short by the lifestyles of the partners at the firm –
many of them rise very early so they can work out and be at work early – they leave
to spend “quality time” with their families in the early evening, before
getting back to work before lights out.
Even for my hard working son, this feels like a daunting life path to be treading.
Michelle Fuller’s life is contrasted with the home of Ted
Gatz and Don. Not only is it the place
where unspeakable things were done to Ted when he was being babysat by a boy
who became one of the local sheriffs, it is a rural home that is in obvious
disrepair. Ted’s obsessions with various
ideas have led him to invest in tinkering, but not in a way that makes the
house a home. It is, instead, a
particular kind of ramshackle man cave, and the bee hives out back are the
least toxic components of the environment that Ted has created and the Don inhabits
with him.
We are not surprised when Ted wants Don to join him in
chemical emasculation so that his sexual thoughts don’t derail them from their
mission of fixing the earth. Ted’s
feelings of paternal affection for the earth seem divorced from the kind of care
that we would associate with generative paternal functioning. From a toxic masculine perspective, women
have taken over our space, we have defined ourselves not in positive qualities,
but as the things that women – our mothers – are not. We need to develop into a different
space. We do that, only to find that women
have already occupied that space and we now have nowhere to live – so we abandon
the community. We don’t have a vision
for how it should be, only dissatisfaction with how it is, so we want to
destroy the changes that have led us to feel disaffected, isolated and lonely –
but we recoil from acknowledging the soft feminine core of that desire for
something that feels a lot like dependency and being a little baby - attachment.
For Ted, his retreat is into a very cerebral world. He becomes obsessed with a variety of
conspiracy theories and finally lands on one that he beilieves to be true, and he comes up with inventive
ways to test the theory. His abduction of Michelle is the final piece that he needs to prove it. He may not have the resources
of the corporation, or indeed much of a community at all, outside of the obeisance
of Don, but he does have considerable smarts.
These smarts are read by Michelle (and us) as madness, and she works from
within that framework to connect with him, but Ted, as crazy as he may be, recognizes
her pandering ploy and will have none of it.
Her offers to connect are clearly a trap – whether she is offering sex
or comfort and dependency he knows that this is just more of what he is trying
to overcome and he and Michelle are stuck in a standoff.
Michelle’s effective strategy is to offer a solution – one that
fits within Ted’s sense of her as both all powerful and withholding – and she
offers what we realize is a fatal solution to the thing that he seems most to
desire. She dangles it in front of him,
like bait, and he bites. But even after
he knows that it is bait, she still holds him in her thrall because she has the
answer to his overwrought, paranoid fantasies about what has led to the
upending of the world as we (used to) know it.
He hangs in there even after delivering the most horrendous betrayal any person
could lavish on another because his curiosity is so powerful and has such a
hold on him.
This view of human nature – that we are driven both by
primal nearly unmanageable urges but that reason, the very faculty that we use
to curb those urges, can be corrupted. In
current neuropsychoanalytic speak, the seeking urge, the one that
leads to and is supported by higher cognitive functions, is also, for lack of a
better word, primitive and can override those other urges that would save us, like attachment, to
our detriment. That is, the very thing
that Ted is relying on to lead him out of the morass is what proves his
undoing. I suppose I have just described
this as a classical tragedy, and the ending would suggest that we, as a
species, have internal programming that cannot be overcome. That which would lead us out will, in the
end, be our undoing. This is not black "comedy" at all.
Just to follow up on one more thread here, women, leaving
hearth and home and inhabiting male roles, end up leaving their redeeming
qualities at home – so their inhabiting the masculine space is not a
solution. That thread leads me to
believe that this film really is, underneath it all, supporting a weird version
of the toxic masculine discourse. I’m
not sure whether it is doing that ironically or unconsciously, and whether it
is offering a reduction ad absurdum argument (you guys are crazy - women would not be ruthless as you imagine men would be in that position - and men need to be ruthless to protect our sanctuary) – or whether this really is a dim
view of what we are capable of becoming as a species.
To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), just enter your email in the subscribe by email box to the right of the text.















